Mark David Chapman was once again denied parole again for the 3rd time in a row which is excellent news. He was denied on the basis of "Extreme malicious intent" and the panel had this to say, "During the interview your statement for motivation acknowledges the attention you felt this murder would generate," the board wrote in its single-page decision. "Although proven true, such rationale is bizarre and morally corrupt." He is up for parole once again in 2006 so lets all keep our fingers crossed that this ville fiend will get to stay behind bars where he belongs.

Mr. Kite

Logged

[size=14][size=14]-Mr. Kite![/size][size=14]<br />'ving been some days in preparation a splendid time is guaranteed for all![/size][/size]<br />

guitarhero2000

Yes i think he's acknowledged that he may have done it for attention and that he's obviously going to be 'famous' for it for ever but i find it hard to believe he's still a threat to the public. i think he keeps getting refused for the opposite reason, that some Beatles fanatic will probably shoot him and earn themselves a jail sentence in the same way that the mother of one of Myra Hindley's victims may have done if Hindley had been released. Why should a celebrity killer serve more than anyone else, Chapman's served 23 years already.

i don't mean to be subversive to this forum but i think many people have a simplistic view of Mark Chapman and that he was a nasty, evil, cold blooded killer who shot that lovable, cute peace-loving pop star. I imagine some people think that Albert Goldman's book was 'all lies' and that Ray Coleman's was the truth. i believe Goldman's book was more accurate. For a man who supposedly achieved happiness and domestic contentment and was drug-free in 1975-80, he looks very thin and pale in the 1980 photos (also if you look at his nose, it started to look more and more like a beak, this is due to cocaine use) and John admitted that he hit women, was sexist and chauvinistic and was a severely flawed individual. Surely Fred Seaman, Marnie Hair and others at the Dakota weren't all complete liars fabricating stories, not to mention May Pang and it seems clear that Chapman went through depression, was very confused and yes committed murder and got a deserved life sentence but has served his time. the issue should be whether he's a danger to the public but no it's (probably) whether he's at risk. just want to get some perspective on it. i'm a massive Lennon fan but i think the best thing he did was admit his flaws rather than being a 'nice' well-adjusted man.

Has the forum ever discussed Goldman vs Coleman?? which is more accurate. i'd love to hear views about this.

Just for the record, much of Goldman's material i believe was exaggerated, like John being responsible for both Stu Sutcliffe and Brian Epstein's deaths, his having an affair with Brian up to 1967 and other exaggerations about anorexia and psychosis. however, can anyone really look at 'Sweet Toronto' and tell me he doesn't look like he'd been throwing up backstage???

Also, in Mojo's Lennon special Goldman's defence is that he overran by several hundred pages and lots of positive material had to go.

ok enough i'm done!!

thanx for your time

[quote by=Mr._Kite link=Blah.pl?b=lennon,m=1097021833,s=0 date=1097021833]Mark David Chapman was once again denied parole again for the 3rd time in a row which is excellent news.